Re: Need better is_better_time_interpolator() algorithm

[George Anzinger]

Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 08:39 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
>
> > I think a priority is something useful for the interpolators. Some of 
> > the decisions about which time sources to use also have criteria different 
> > from drift/latency/jitter/cpu. F.e. timers may not survive various 
> > power-saving configurations. Thus I would think that we need a priority 
> > plus some flags.
> >
> > Some of the criteria for choosing a time source may be:
>
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
>    I sent another followup to this thread with a patch containing a
> fairly crude algorithm that I think better explains my starting point.
> I'm sure the weighting and scaling factors need work, but I think many
> of the criteria you describe will favor the right clock.
>
>
> > 1. If a system boots up with a single cpu then there is no question that 
> > the ITC/TSC should be used because of the fast access.

We need to factor in frequency shifting here, especially if it happens 
with out notice.


~
--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
HRT (High-res-timers):  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/